S.J. residents get multiple-choice growth plans

After almost five years of mostly behind-the-scenes work, officials are giving the public its first look at how our communities might grow in the future - and you're invited to join in the discussion.

Alex Breitler

After almost five years of mostly behind-the-scenes work, officials are giving the public its first look at how our communities might grow in the future - and you're invited to join in the discussion.

Maps unveiled Wednesday by the San Joaquin Council of Governments depict four ways in which cities might grow through 2035. These "scenarios" range from continuing to build mostly single-family homes on farmland to a significant shift toward denser neighborhoods within the footprints of existing cities.

Officials are also, for the first time, estimating the degree to which reducing sprawl would conserve agricultural land while alleviating pollution and traffic, among other effects.

The details will be discussed at a series of community meetings starting Saturday and extending into next week.

The plan remains "a work in progress," said Aaron Hoyt, an associate planner with the Council of Governments. Still, the end is in sight - a draft plan could be issued as soon as November, with final approval of one of the four scenarios by spring.

Communities across California are required to write these plans as a result of Senate Bill 375, passed by the Legislature in 2008. The law requires "sustainable community strategies" to link land use and transportation, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Cities will still have the authority to grow as they see fit, but billions of dollars in funding will be allocated to roads, rails and other transportation projects that are consistent with the new plan. That will influence where and how growth takes place.

The most conventional scenario shows Stockton continuing to grow toward the north, beyond Eight Mile Road. Lathrop would expand to the west and the east, Manteca would develop south of Highway 120, and Tracy would see large areas of new housing on its periphery, southwest as far as Interstate 580.

More than 90 percent of the homes built in the county would continue to be single-family houses typical of past developments. More than 14,000 acres of prime farmland - an area larger than the city of Tracy - would be paved over.

Under an alternative at the other end of the spectrum, growth on the edges of cities would be much more limited, and new mixed-use commercial neighborhoods would sprout within city limits. Two new Altamont Corridor Express stations would be built.

Half of the homes under that plan would be townhouses or apartments. As a result, far less farmland would be consumed.

Denser growth also would reduce the number of miles we drive and, therefore, greenhouse gas emissions. It would also decrease energy and water use and would increase mass transit use, though some of these other benefits are not so large.

Transportation priorities would shift from building new roads and widening existing ones to expanding mass transit.

Slow-growth advocates line up behind that denser alternative, saying it should not be considered the "extreme" choice merely because it challenges the status quo more than any of the other four options.

"I'm concerned because there are some key things in (that scenario) that aren't represented anywhere else," said planner Randy Hatch. "And many of the key elements are things the cities have committed to already."

John Beckman, head of the Building Industry Association of the Delta, said he would advocate not for the alternative with the most sprawl, but for the next-closest option. He referenced a recent informal survey by the Council of Governments, suggesting that while most people like the idea of denser cities, they still want to live in traditional houses - not multifamily units.

"Because there is the desire for people to live that way, and a financial ability for them to live that way, I believe it's unconscionable to plan for anything other than that," he said.

The slow-growth backers say not enough younger people were involved in the survey, and that the results - indicating 72 percent of respondents would prefer living in rural ranchettes or in conventional single-family homes - are misleading.